17 July 2007 3:52 PM

Some answers, and 'Any Questions'

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Every so often, I’m asked to give advance notice of any broadcasting I'm doing. Generally this is difficult because I do not get very much warning myself. But as of today (Tuesday July 17th), I expect to be on the panel of BBC Radio 4's 'Any Questions' on Friday July 20th. The 50-minute programme goes out live just after the 8.00 p.m. news, and is repeated on Saturday after the 1.00 p.m. news. After transmission, it can be heard on the web. As with all such arrangements, it is subject to change at short notice. At present, other panel members include Dominic Grieve, the Tory frontbench MP, and Julia Neuberger, the Rabbi and Liberal Democrat peer. For some time after that, I shall be away, so I would ask contributors to carry on the discussion in my absence. I will try to reply to comments when I return.

First I'd like to respond to some comments on my MMR posting. Steve Johnson urges me to spend time with 'real scientists' rather than indulging in 'idle speculation about state conspiracies'. I'm not aware of having indulged in any speculation, idle or not, about state conspiracies. And scientists, above all people, know that it is impossible to prove a negative - so assertions that it is ' proven' that there is 'no link' between this injection and bowel disease or autism are unscientific in themselves. That's why I highlighted Vivienne Parry's much more reasonable and sensible statement, on the possibility of a link affecting a small number of people. What if you were one of them?

So far as I know, no study has ever sought to establish, using controls and such like, if there is such a link. Researchers have trawled through existing figures, gathered for a different purpose, looking for a statistical correlation and not found it. This doesn't answer the concerns of people such as Heather Edwards, who find persuasive circumstantial evidence that there might be a link.

As for 'conspiracies', that's your word. I have written elsewhere about the misleading use of this word to conjure up a picture of a fantasist with persecution mania, crouching at keyholes. It's a low trick in debate, designed to divert attention from the argument and turn it against the person. Conspiracies do happen, if you mean private gatherings of people agreeing to pursue in public (but without acknowledging their joint enterprise) a coordinated course of action. In modern Britain such things generally go by the name of 'lunch' though to my certain knowledge they also happen over dinner tables. But I never used the word, or anything like it. If my description of the strange letters I received conjured up the idea of such a conspiracy, that's your affair. I only described, with cold, complete accuracy, what happened.

John Chivall moves from the assertion that Wakefield's claim remains unproven by research, and that there is a 'consensus' against it, to describing it as a 'lie'. He uses terms such as 'deceiving' and 'cynically exploiting'. I am really not sure how the MMR-sceptics in the medical profession have benefited, financially or professionally, from taking this position. Nor do I think there is any evidence that they sought to do so. Again, the language is strangely harsh and intolerant. If you think they're wrong, say so. But why attribute low motives? Even if they are mistaken, it is possible to be honourably mistaken.

'Kenny' asks if people would prefer an autistic child or a dead one? This sort of thing does make me wonder if people are paying attention at all. The diseases prevented by MMR are not, in general, life-threatening. Deaths from measles, in their thousands before World War One, fell for many decades before the introduction of the original single measles vaccine ( which most MMR sceptics would be happy to give their children, if they could) in 1968. After that, they dwindled almost to nothing - as they might have done anyway without the vaccine. Nobody can be sure but the trend had already been downwards, almost certainly due to clean water, better housing and better nutrition. That is why, Mr Johnson, Measles is a killer in the Third World and not here - because hunger, filth and squalor turn it from a minor affliction into a major danger. Yes, it can in rare cases lead to encephalitis, but these are extremely rare and would hardly be reason for inoculating an entire population.

The MMR zealots' constant alarmism over measles is one of the main reasons why I continue to mistrust them. If they were confident of their case, they wouldn't need to scare people in this way. Nic Clarke asks about mumps. Please correct me if I am wrong, but mumps in children seldom has any serious complications or effects on fertility. But if there are such epidemics, I believe they could almost certainly have been avoided by the provision of single vaccines when doubts first surfaced after the MMR. I have always thought the official response to public doubt was foolish as well as bullying. The state in a free country is supposed to serve us, not order us about, as Colin Merton rightly points out. That is the real point of this whole argument. Would the MMR defenders prefer to live in a country where dissent was punished by law, and injections could be given compulsorily to children, whatever the wishes of the children's parents? I do hope not.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I can remember reading an interview with a mother who had 7 children, 6 of whom had developed autism. All but the eldest had received the MMR vaccination. It was only her eldest child who had not developed autism. It may not prove a link, but it's enough to make anyone think twice.

Wakefield's study should not have ever 'set alarm bells'. Dr Nicholas Chadwick was the first person to demand his name be removed from the paper, before it was even published. He did so because it was his job to test the samples for 'false positives' which he found and told Wakefield.

This is publicly available information, it isn't hard to find. It was included as part of Chadwick's testimony in the Autism Omnibus court case in the US which has the transcripts available online. Wakefield found nothing.

I actually agree with Mr Hitchens' comments here. I don't think he was suggesting that measles was a water-borne disease at all. I think he was observing that because of advances in medicine, better nutrition and the positive impacts on health of more effective drainage & sewerage systems over the past century, people's immune systems have become better able cope with illnesses such as measles (or any other infectious disease) than had previously been the case.
I also support the notion that the argument here is about "good science", and the extract by Wakefield et. al. presented above, should immediately set alarm-bells ringing. A study of 12 cases, 11 of them boys presenting evidence of other disorders within the sample group?
How could one say for sure in a sample this small what the results showed?
One would have hoped at the very least to see clear evidence of a longitudinal study, using a much larger sample group, which should then be subjected to a rigorous analysis by the wider scientific community.

Once again Hitchens makes rather large flaws in his argument.
It is impossible to prove a negative, how true, but that doesn't mean it is positive. Just because you cannot prove there is no link certainly does not mean there is one.
But the largest is the gain you deny the people involved would make. 1. Wakefield was working for families to prove a link and so therefore win compensation, which skewed his research. 2. Most of all, Wakefield had patented an alternative one shot vaccine to MMR and if it was discredited, stood to make rather a large gain indeed.

Peter Hitchens says "I am not qualified to make judgements about whether Andrew Wakefield's work was poor. Nor, I suspect, is Mr Johnson." Of course he is! And so are you! That's the whole point - the whole source of the trouble! I refer you to what the previous poster said about wearing white on a Tuesday - you don't just call for a government policy allowing people to choose not to wear white on a Tuesday just because someone - a Mr Jones, say, stood up and said "I believe wearing white on a Tuesday is unhealthy". Mr Jones has to present evidence, available for scrutiny by others.

I have posted the "abstract" of the original study below for Peter Hitchens or anyone else to read - the citation is from PubMed. There was a sample size of 12 in this study - very small. Secondly, this was a series of children already known to have 1) behavioural disorders 2) bowel disorders, and 3) to have had the MMR vaccination. The paper's conclusion was subsequently retracted by most of the authors. Can you not see why this is poor science? On the other hand, we have a series - hundreds now - of very large studies which have been unable to find a link. And the media presents this as some kind of equal debate to uninformed and concerned parents. Can you really not see why this is wrong?

BACKGROUND: We investigated a consecutive series of children with chronic enterocolitis and regressive developmental disorder. METHODS: 12 children (mean age 6 years [range 3-10], 11 boys) were referred to a paediatric gastroenterology unit with a history of normal development followed by loss of acquired skills, including language, together with diarrhoea and abdominal pain. Children underwent gastroenterological, neurological, and developmental assessment and review of developmental records. Ileocolonoscopy and biopsy sampling, magnetic-resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), and lumbar puncture were done under sedation. Barium follow-through radiography was done where possible. Biochemical, haematological, and immunological profiles were examined. FINDINGS: Onset of behavioural symptoms was associated, by the parents, with measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination in eight of the 12 children, with measles infection in one child, and otitis media in another. All 12 children had intestinal abnormalities, ranging from lymphoid nodular hyperplasia to aphthoid ulceration. Histology showed patchy chronic inflammation in the colon in 11 children and reactive ileal lymphoid hyperplasia in seven, but no granulomas. Behavioural disorders included autism (nine), disintegrative psychosis (one), and possible postviral or vaccinal encephalitis (two). There were no focal neurological abnormalities and MRI and EEG tests were normal. Abnormal laboratory results were significantly raised urinary methylmalonic acid compared with age-matched controls (p=0.003), low haemoglobin in four children, and a low serum IgA in four children. INTERPRETATION: We identified associated gastrointestinal disease and developmental regression in a group of previously normal children, which was generally associated in time with possible environmental triggers.

Your appearance on Any Questions must have been a rip-roaring success - but not for the BBC - as it is not available as "listen again" as it normally is.
To quote Monty Python: "A programmme about government interference in broadcasting will be cancelled mysteriously!"

Re: the MMR outcry being cried out again. Peter - as you correctly say you can't prove a negative, and no self-respecting scientist would ever claim anything to be "proven", but, one of the main reasons that science is so successful is because it seeks to overcome people's inherent preference for their own pet theory by deliberately ignoring subjective or anecdotal evidence. There is simply no objective evidence to suggest a link between MMR and autism.

That's not to say there categorically isn't a link. There might equally be a link between iron deficiency and wearing white on a Tuesday. However, there is simply no evidence to suggest this. I could go as far as saying that if there is a link, it must be so tenuous as to be almost undetectable, otherwise we would have detected it. So why is it so unreasonable to proceed on the basis that there is no link?

While it might be a flippant example, the NHS do not provide staff with coloured uniforms for use only on a Tuesday. If the NHS were to provide the more expensive individual jabs for concerned parents as you suggest, in the face of the (lack of) evidence, it would be a political and profoundly unscientific decision. If valuable funding was diverted from a genuine cause as a direct result of the latest irrational media scare - just to help you lot sell papers in other words - then I for one would be extremely annoyed.

On a serious note, this sort of thing really doesn't help anyone. While so many parents are convinced that their offspring's ailments were triggerred by MMR, we are not only seeing a rise in the diseases themselves, but we are wasting money pursuing red herrings when we could be investigating the real causes of autism.

Dear Mr Hitchens, should Dr Wakefield be found to have acted inappropriately and not be fit to practice, would you reassess your position on his work? The accusations against him are very serious. From the tone of your comments I seriously doubt that you will move one iota. Correct me if I am wrong, but the impression is that were he to be found unfit by the GMC, you and many others would just label this as a show-trial and that he was entirely innocent.

"Millions of pounds of public money have been spent on scientific studies researching the evidence for a link. Not a single reputable study has found any".

Why not spend these millions on allowing concerned parents to choose single jabs? If you're worried about wasting public funds, I'd hazard a guess far less has been spent on researching MMR than consulting on the now defunct super casinos.

Thank you for your response to my comment. You ask whether MMR-sceptics have profited financially or personally from taking their position. It is well documented that Andrew Wakefield received more than £400,000 in fees from lawyers acting for families of children with autism, and colleagues of his received over £100,000. What is really shocking is that this all came ultimately from the taxpayer, via the Legal Services Commission. £14million was spent but the 1,600 claimants in the case (mostly recruited through media stories building on Wakefield's claims) got nothing.

Dear Mr Hitchens. I read your reply to Mr Johnson's post with interest and would like to take up some of your points. I certainly disagree with your assessment that vaccination has had comparatively lesser effect - measles not being a water-borne disease pays very little heed to good sewerage, although having a well population not debilitated by other illnesses does help one's immune system. Measles vaccination programmes in the Third World have shown remarkable efficiency and protection. We stand in our current position, with comparatively little fear of measles thanks to vaccination; we could easily lose that position, and our children will be the ones to suffer. The main reason that it's effects are lesser are mainly due to our healthcare system, and that once a child is diagnosed with the disease, they get a decent standard of treatment.

You are right to assert that we should keep vigilant checks on both medical and scientific doctors, but that also includes maverick doctors who attempt to work outside the "establishment" as much as the establishment itself. You claim not to be qualified to pass judgement on Andrew Wakefield, but make supportive comments later, referring to "amazing double coincidence" with Heather and Josh Edwards. In relation to autism and bowel disorders, as far as I am aware, Wakefield claimed to have discovered a new disorder (even named it) and yet when re-examined, it couldn't be observed in a single one of the children. Neither was there any measles virus found in their bowels - an outright fabrication, which stands as the basis for questioning the MMR jab. The answer to not giving single vaccines is simply that instead of two jabs, there are six, all of which must be completed in order to gain proper effectiveness.

You are quite right to say that cot death advice has changed, however, the change of advice didn't cause an increase in cot deaths so all that could be apologised for is that doctors still don't know what causes cot death and we tried to give advice that we thought would help, but it didn't make any difference. Now, if cot deaths had been caused to increase as a result of this advice, it would be a different matter.

"This may be partly because nobody has ever looked for one with the sort of resources necessary to discover it, and it may also be because the numbers involved are rather small, which is comforting unless you're one of them." This is true, on both counts (and had Andrew Wakefield properly carried out his research we'd be in a more well informed position with far less mistrust and rumour) but unless you choose to stop all medical interventions there will always be a small number for whom that particular intervention, whether a medicine or a vaccine, will produce an adverse reaction.

The link between autism and vaccination is to date unproven (although I agree that more work needs to done) and so far the first legal test case showed (from family videos from both before and after vaccination) that the child in question already showed autistic tendencies before vaccination. To take what is no more than conjecture to build a health policy is very questionable, at a time when we already complain of "kneejerk" politics this would be even worse.

You say "This may be partly because nobody has ever looked for one [MMR link]with the sort of resources necessary to discover it,"
Below is a quote from Fiona Fox of the Science Media Centre:
[Since the MMR row started] "...millions of pounds of public money have been spent on scientific studies researching the evidence for a link. Not a single reputable study has found any and just last year the SMC coordinated a joint appeal from many of those involved in child health that the media now draw a line under this row unless and until it has compelling new evidence. Many autism experts have echoed this call and issued their own plea for resources to move from the obsession with MMR to investigating the many other possible causes - including genetics, environmental factors and so on. "
She goes on to explain that the original Observer article presented no such compelling evidence a few weeks ago. In fact the unpublished report the Observer cited did not mention MMR at all - its focus was on methods of diagnosing autistic spectrum disorders.

Peter Hitchens wrote:
"Leo Watkins ( July 18th , 4.28 p.m.) would be making an excellent point if I were describing all supporters of the MMR vaccination as 'zealots'. I am not. The accusation is specific. I reserve the term for those who persecute Dr Wakefield..."

I don't see any zealotry in the fact that Wakefield is currently up before the GMC. There are certainly allegations against him that merit a hearing - for example, allegations of unethical research on children. Given that Wakefield is on video boasting of paying children for blood at a birthday party it would be strange if the GMC did not hold a hearing re. this alleged misconduct: there is clearly a case to answer.

Re. the effects of measles, we could be looking at a hospitalisation rate of 12% of children and 22% of adults in the UK . I wouldn't call this a "minor affliction".

Mr Johnson ( July 20th, 9.05 p.m.) graciously withdraws an accusation but still doesn't appreciate or grasp my actual argument about MMR. He wants me to be a hardline as my opponents. But I'm not. I lack their certainty. Let me try again. I don't believe that measles is 'trivial'. I acknowledge, and always have done, since the science is impossible to dispute, that in a small number of cases it can be very serious indeed, even in an advanced country. However, such cases are rare. And the history of measles in this country shows that the virtual abolition of hunger and squalor, and the construction of sewerage and clean water systems, played a far greater part in diminishing the danger from measles than either the single or triple vaccines.

The fact that measles is dangerous in Third World countries, wile sad and true, has no bearing on policy in this country. The question is one of probability and proportionality. How completely can you armour a society against risks? Doesn't their likelihood and prevalence have some bearing on this? Is it therefore right ( or good science) to exaggerate risks so as to destroy individual choic? The MMR zealots, so as to crush parents seeking single jabs, are inclined to suggest that measles is more of a threat than it is, on occasion by using global rather than national statistics, on occasion by citing deaths from measles which involved children who were already seriously ill - but without mentioning this important detail. I regard that as dishonest, and I am always made suspicious by dishonesty.

It can be even worse. MMR zealots, as I have elsewhere written, have also sent me professionally faked letters claiming to be from mothers whose children had suffered terribly from measles. I regard this a particularly disgusting lie. And I instinctively suspect the cause that uttered it.

What I do say about measles is that it is not the major danger which the MMR zealots pretend it is. That is to say, that they exaggerate its dangers. They do this to try to force parenst who wnat single vaccines to accede to the MMR. Not merely is this wrong. It also doesn't work. Its purpose is dogmatic, power-driven, rather than medically benevolent. If its aim were truly to increase the coverage of measles immunisation, it would have been abandoned as a failure long since.

I am not qualified to make judgements about whether Andrew Wakefield's work was poor. Nor, I suspect, is Mr Johnson. True, a lot of people say it was. But I have lost a lot of my reverence for the medical profession over the past few decades, and would not assume that a consensus was necessarily right just because it was a consensus. Majorities and officials can be wrong. Doctors can err, especially when they have the establishment behind them (Do read the wodnerful author A.J.Cronin's 1930s novel 'The Citadel' for a superb insider's view of the profession, drawn from the life and still as telling today as the day it was written).

I well remember that 24 years ago the official advice to new parents was to lie their babies on their fronts, to avoid cot death. Five years later, the advice was the exact opposite. What I don't recall is any apology or official admission of error. Does anyone else? I have been misdiagnosed and misprescribed, and am old enough to remember awful amalgam fillings, and the fashion for tonsillectomy that obsessed the doctors of my childhood, not to mention Thalidomide, the miracle cure for morning sickness ( and how long did it take for the drug company involved to admit its liability for that?), and the mess we made in this country of the Polio vaccine. Dr Wakefield may well be wrong. I have no idea - though the case of Heather and Josh Edwards, and the amazing double coincidence of his MMR injections and the things which followed both of them, would give anyone pause, who had a fibre of scepticism in him. It is also the case the the pro-MMR campaign do not know that the vaccine is safe for everyone. They rightly assert that no link has been proven between MMR and autism/bowel disease. This may be partly because nobody has ever looked for one with the sort of resources necessary to discover it, and it may also be because the numbers involved are rather small, which is comforting unless you're one of them.

But many of them then slither into a much more ambitious claim, that it is proven that there is no link. This isn't true, and couldn't be true. So why not let worried parents have single vaccines on the NHS if they want them? If what you want is more coverage against measles, that's the way to get it. Do please argue against what I say, not against what you would prefer me to have said, if only I had been the fanatical villain you suspect me to be.

CG Jung defined dogma as an attempt to shut out all doubt once and for all. This is what the Government has been trying to do concerning MMR. They continually assert publicly that the vaccine is safe, when they cannot themselves be certain that it is safe, and our late Prime Minister refused repeatedly to say whether his own child had received the vaccine.

Their assertions do not reflect any firm conviction on their part, but rather an attempt to convince the public so that the medical establishment should not suffer further embarrassment.

Why the pessimism?! If you bring these back, and with a strong law that prosecutes harshly those you do attack wardens, inspectors, etc, then the country will immediately be markedly more safe, pleasant and peaceful. Continue then we may end up with South American-style policing - which isn't the British way - or worse. Call me hopelessly optimistic. Churchill was - and saved Britain from deletion as we all know.

Dear Mr Hitchens, I hope that people will take the time to go back and read both your original blog and my original response. I will admit now that the word 'idle' was unfortunate - you are certainly not idle. I apologise if I misread your piece as 'speculation about state conspiracies'. Perhaps is was the word 'persecute' in the title and the very first sentence that led me down that path? ("How would you expect a totalitarian dictatorship to arrive in a country which had been free for centuries?")

Aside from my initial accusation against you, the main thrust of my reply was to highlight two things: (i) that most good and independent scientists agree that Wakefield's science was poor (to put it politely) and (ii) that measles is not trivial even it it rarely kills in the UK.
Much of your response to me talks about science not proving anything 100%. I didn't talk about this issue at all. If I had, I would have said that the weight of evidence is against Wakefield. Circumstantial or anecdotal evidence is the first step in scientific enquiry only, it should not drive a debate for 10 years in the face of objective evidence.

We have gone too far down the road to anarchy to bring back "Park wardens, cinema ushers and usherettes [and] ticket inspectors", nice though the idea sounds. Such people would simply be attacked, not taken notice of.

Re the MMR debate - I may be wrong, but didn't the government and its scientists once tell us there was no link between electricity pylons and leukaemia? It was on the news yesterday that a committee of MPs has recommended no new houses within 200 yards of pylons due to the "70%" increased risk of developing leukaemia for children living within this distance of a pylon.

Leo Watkins ( July 18th , 4.28 p.m.) would be making an excellent point if I were describing all supporters of the MMR vaccination as 'zealots'. I am not. The accusation is specific. I reserve the term for those who persecute Dr Wakefield, for those who pester parents to give their child the vaccine, for those who seem to think that "there is no evidence of a link beween MMR and autism/bowel disease" means the same thing as "It is proven that there is no link between MMR and autism/bowel/disease". I apply it in general to those who bully and patronise perplexed and worried parents, rather than accepting that their fears are real and reasonable, and should be treated with respect. Hence my longstanding call for the NHS to offer single vaccines to those who do not want the MMR. If these people weren't zealots, they would see that such a policy would achieve the very aim they claim to be seeking - greater coverage. But they are more concerned to get their way, and assert that they are right, than they are to benefit the common good they claim to serve. So, thanks to their zealotry, measles immunisation remains below desirable levels. Only zealotry could take any satisfaction from that. Also for those who sent me elaborately faked letters from non-existent mothers claiming that my articles had led to their non-existent children becoming gravely ill. These people are zealots. I would certainly except from this such figures as Vivienne Parry, whom I praised for her candour in the MoS and here, and with whom I am now conducting a reasoned and civilised correspondence on the subject.

I do think you have a point regarding the language used by our host. However the "nasty" castigation of those with doubts and fears do surely betray something of zealotry. I suspect that the real reason for the push behind the MMR (and I'm not one of the opponents) is that it is easier for officialdom and the NHS than the separate vaccinations that may otherwise be given.

Officialdom in this country is becoming ever more intolerant and nasty - just think of the letters you'll get if they think you haven't paid your TV License. Another one is the registration to vote letter. Voting is not compulsory, so why is registration? Surely it is simple: if you can't be bothered to put your name on the list, then you can't vote - but that's your choice, foolish as it may be. This seems to be a trend in contemporary society with varying forms of "officialdom" assuming that they have the right to browbeat the population and demand obedience. This is one of the downsides of "socialism" with its empowerment of a massive bureaucracy. Whilst MP's may have to at least try to be nice to those whose votes they seek (there are some nasty exceptions), bureaucrats have no such obligation. Those who think that expansions in the size of government, in taxes, and in the who array of laws and regulations are going to produce a better society should look around them and have a bit of a rethink. Many won't, however, because it is an article of faith to them, and so they'd rather blame it on various other factors, any other factor, rather than admit the concept is flawed.

Socialism's fatal flaw is that, at heart, it expects that everyone will treat everyone else as though they are a close family member. Not all families treat close family members that way. So it ultimately relies on compulsion, and those at the top of the tree have the option of using their position and influence to improve matters for themselves and their actual families. Is it any wonder it doesn't work as it is supposed to? I’m not advocating the dismantling of the welfare state, or the end of regulation, but I think it is about time that people in our society finally admitted that looking to the State for the solution to all life’s problems is fatally flawed, and causes as many problems as it solves, and sometimes far more.

Forgive me, Mr Hitchens, but i find the fact that you go to such pains to explain why the labelling of a theory as a conspiracy one, or indeed the labelling of a person (in this case yourself) as a conspiracy-theorist, rather odd. Not because i disagree - in fact, I agree wholeheartedly with your apparent dislike of such unnecessarily personal terms.

Instead, I find it odd that you choose to generalise and label the supporters of the MMR vaccine as "zealots": a term not terribly far from "conspiracy-theorist" in my own opinion. Therefore, i would most appreciate it if you could explain how the above example is not a case of inconsistency on your part.

‘The better-off have abandoned the worse off to a moral chaos that only the rich can cope with’ – that’s the neatest description of the actual, as opposed to pretended, effects of Socialism that I’ve ever read. The biggest con trick in history: be vastly generous with other peoples’ money and you can claim the monopoly on compassion. And your ineptly manipulative ‘conservative’ opposition will feel that they have no other option but to adopt exactly the same approach. The result: a population which, compared to it’s forebears, is uniquely selfish, whinging, nasty and dependent – the opposite of genuinely compassionate – all somehow encapsulated by the wave of phoney mass grieving (pyramids of flowers which they hadn’t even bothered to take out of the cellophane) and simultaneous mob induced hatred seen in the wake of Diana’s passing.

Expect to see much, much more of this as the New Curriculum continues to destroy real learning, real thought, real education - and promotes Citizenship over Christianity.

It's curious how times have changed. For almost a decade, right up until they lost power, the Tories' overriding division was thought to be over the EU. Whatever happened to that perception? There seems to have been a tacit acknowledgement throughout the political world that the Eurosceptics broadly won out (symbolised most acutely in Ken Clarke's three defeats in contents for the leadership).

But now the question is - does the present perceived line of division, of which Peter reminds us again here, have any correlation with the old one, and if so, are there theoretical reasons to expect such a co-alignment?

All suggestions welcome - and I'd be especially glad if Peter himself could sometime share his thoughts on this - though that probably can't be for a few weeks now.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.